From: owner-champ-l-digest@sysabend.org
Sent: Saturday, January 30, 1999 2:13 AM
To: champ-l-digest@sysabend.org
Subject: champ-l-digest V1 #171
champ-l-digest Saturday, January 30 1999 Volume 01 : Number 171
In this issue:
Re: [Re: Power set question.]
Re: Power set question.
Re: Limitations on Multipowers
RE: Tolkien Character Question
Mind Link Question
Re: Multipower Questions
Re: Mind Link Question
Re: Power set question.
Re: Limitations on Multipowers
Re: Multipower Questions
Re: extra time
Re: Limitations on Multipowers
Re: Modifiers to Telepathy Attacks
Re: Limitations on Multipowers
Re: Levels and Limitations
Re: Limitations on Multipowers
Re: How much damage should guns do.
Re: Power set question.
Re: Modifiers to Telepathy Attacks
Power set Question ver2
Re: Limitations on Multipowers
Re: Limitations on Multipowers
Re: Multipower Questions
Re: A painful question
Re: Multipower Questions
Re: Modifiers to Telepathy Attacks
Re: Multipower Questions
Re: Power set question.
Re: How much damage should guns do.
Hero news!
Re: Multipower Questions
Re: Hero news!
Re: How much damage should guns do.
Re: How much damage should guns do.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 29 Jan 99 17:13:26 MST
From: ANTHONY VARGAS <anthony.vargas@usa.net>
Subject: Re: [Re: Power set question.]
owner-champ-l@sysabend.org wrote:
>
> >20 2d6 HKA, not vs. living creatures(-1/2),OIHID(-1/4),OAF(-1/2), 0
> >END(+1/2)
> >
> >16 +6d6 HA, only vs. Living Creatures(-1/4), Stun Only(-1/4), OIHID
> >(-1/4),OAF (-1/2), 0 END(+1/2), Linked to HKA(-1/2)
>
> Using both stun only and only vs. living creatures sounds a bit odd -- is
> the character really going to run into that many non-living things with a
> STUN stat?
Well, the Assesinos in the BBB have two or 3 memebers who would probably
qualify. Stalker (a vampire), Tombstone Kid (a ghost or revenant, IIRC),
and probably Montanna (the Earth Elemental). I've frequently seen
androids and the like written up with STN scores, too. So, I guess it
does happen.
Of course, the STN only bit isn't even an option on an HA. HA only adds
to STR damage, it doesn't have the option of not doing BOD, like EB
does (one of the reasons we need a good 5pt HA). One option would be
Reduced Penetration and/or pulling your punch. The more obvious one is
simple a STN-only (-0) EB, with No Range (STR wouldn't add, but you
do get a -1/2 for the no range...). NND or STN Drain are also candidates.
____________________________________________________________________
Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1
------------------------------
Date: 29 Jan 1999 20:07:13 -0500
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: Power set question.
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
"TG" == Tim Gilberg <gilberg@ou.edu> writes:
TG> Er, no. By the book, does no bod is a -0 modifier. (Of course,
TG> this assumes that does no bod does not include no KB.)
By the book, 'does no Body' is also exclusive to Energy Blast. Does no
Body on an RKA is a wasted +1.5 Advantage (cf AVLD) :).
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v0.9.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE2sltBgl+vIlSVSNkRAqzMAJ9QWeOfoDzUBooOAemLJWaWkkQMgQCfVhMp
4fKZDSAVh4uWIJGy0xwxrVo=
=qJZ6
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- --
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Warning: pregnant women, the elderly, and
Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ children under 10 should avoid prolonged
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ exposure to Happy Fun Ball.
------------------------------
Date: 29 Jan 1999 20:02:33 -0500
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: Limitations on Multipowers
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
"N" == Nuncheon <jeffj@io.com> writes:
N> Um? OK...definition of an OIF states that 1) it's obvious where the
N> powers are coming from and 2) it can be taken away out of combat.
Definition of Focus also states that a Multipower with Focus is considered
to be a single Power for such things as breaking and adjustment powers[1].
If you limit the Multipower itself (the reserve) it is a single Focus; if
you limit the slots but not the reserve, each slot is its own individual
Focus.
[1]Excluding Aid.
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v0.9.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE2slopgl+vIlSVSNkRAkUlAJ9G64mInfzU5e9opIfw/LqzvkwxtACg3jT7
iyhLJZcEb/u6nPAJzwvXNr0=
=WlZW
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- --
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ If Happy Fun Ball begins to smoke, get
Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ away immediately. Seek shelter and cover
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ head.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 19:56:35 -0500
From: "Scott A. Colcord" <sacolcor@ic.net>
Subject: RE: Tolkien Character Question
I would strongly agree...with his VPP aided by Narya, Gandalf, as written,
could create:
2d6 RKA (Flame blast) (233 AP)
Area Effect Radius (Base radius 3") (+1)
x8 million increased radius (Total radius 48,000 km) (+5.75)
...and pretty much kill the entire planet. It has been my experience that
variable power pools become exponentially powerful as they get larger,
probably following the "double every five points" rule. Beyond around 80
points, it gets /really/ gross. I would probably halve the values of both
the power pools and the aids.
----Scott
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-champ-l@sysabend.org [mailto:owner-champ-l@sysabend.org]On
> Behalf Of Scott Nolan
> Sent: Friday, January 29, 1999 2:58 PM
> To: champ-l@sysabend.org
> Subject: Tolkien Character Question
>
>
> I'm beginning to think that I've overstated the size of
> VPP's that should be available to Elrond, Celeborn,
> Galadriel and Gandalf.
>
> And I haven't even gotten to Saruman or Sauron.
>
> I'm thinking I should reduce them for the final drafts.
>
> What do you think?
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> "He who knows only his own side of the case,
> knows little of that."
> John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, 1854
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Scott C. Nolan
> nolan@erols.com
>
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 19:12:38 -0600
From: Tim Statler <tstatler@igateway.net>
Subject: Mind Link Question
Is Mind Link persistant, It says in the description that mind link can
be turned off by either party, but does it go away if one of the 2 is
knocked unconcious.
I assume that mind link is already always on. and that it costs no
endurance. Or am I wrong here?
Tim Statler
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 17:18:05 -0800
From: "Filksinger" <filksinger@usa.net>
Subject: Re: Multipower Questions
From: ANTHONY VARGAS <anthony.vargas@usa.net>
>Filksinger <filkhero@usa.net> wrote:
<snip>
>> The first example gets to apply the -1 Limitation to the pool for no
>> additional limitation, just as the rules state you can. However, the
second
>> penalizes you for doing exactly the same thing.
>
>Actually, it's not the same thing.
Your argument is perfectly good and reasonable, though I may have a quibble
with some fine points.
Nevertheless, the person with the "Lim: Only in rain" gets to reduce his
pool cost _without any penalty whatsoever, while the person with Charges has
to take additional _severe_ penalties. If the first Limitation is worth a -1
on the pool, even though it doesn't create any further restrictions, then I
consider it to be inconsistent and unfair to make other people take severe
additional penalties in order to get the same benefit. Either it is worth
it, just because alone are limited, in which case the guy with charges
should get it without additional penalty, or it isn't worth it when it adds
no additional penalty when applied to the pool, in which case the guy with
the "Only in rain" Limitation _shouldn't_ get it.
Don't penalize the guy with charges just because he took the wrong -1
Limitation.
Filksinger
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 17:45:32 -0800
From: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
Subject: Re: Mind Link Question
From: Tim Statler <tstatler@igateway.net>
>Is Mind Link persistant, It says in the description that mind link can
>be turned off by either party, but does it go away if one of the 2 is
>knocked unconcious.
Mind Link is 0 END, Persistent. ML never goes away unless shut off by an act
of will, or the power is Drained, Suppressed, or Dispelled.
Filksinger
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 19:59:28 -0600 (CST)
From: "Dr. Nuncheon" <jeffj@io.com>
Subject: Re: Power set question.
On 29 Jan 1999, Stainless Steel Rat wrote:
> "TG" == Tim Gilberg <gilberg@ou.edu> writes:
>
> TG> Er, no. By the book, does no bod is a -0 modifier. (Of course,
> TG> this assumes that does no bod does not include no KB.)
>
> By the book, 'does no Body' is also exclusive to Energy Blast. Does no
> Body on an RKA is a wasted +1.5 Advantage (cf AVLD) :).
Agreed...but in this case, since the 'does no body' is only in effect part
of the time, it's not /completely/ 'wasted'.
J
Hostes aliengeni me abduxerent. Jeff Johnston - jeffj@io.com
Qui annus est? http://www.io.com/~jeffj
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 20:00:36 -0600 (CST)
From: "Dr. Nuncheon" <jeffj@io.com>
Subject: Re: Limitations on Multipowers
On 29 Jan 1999, Stainless Steel Rat wrote:
> "N" == Nuncheon <jeffj@io.com> writes:
>
> N> Um? OK...definition of an OIF states that 1) it's obvious where the
> N> powers are coming from and 2) it can be taken away out of combat.
>
> Definition of Focus also states that a Multipower with Focus is considered
> to be a single Power for such things as breaking and adjustment powers[1].
Ehh. Good point. Best to just take '-1/2 variable limitation' on the MP
reserve then. Comes out to the same thing mechanically and cost-wise.
J
Hostes aliengeni me abduxerent. Jeff Johnston - jeffj@io.com
Qui annus est? http://www.io.com/~jeffj
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 20:08:44 -0600
From: Donald Tsang <tsang@sedl.org>
Subject: Re: Multipower Questions
>Nevertheless, the person with the "Lim: Only in rain" gets to reduce his
>pool cost _without any penalty whatsoever, while the person with Charges
>has to take additional _severe_ penalties. If the first Limitation
>is worth a -1 on the pool, even though it doesn't create any further
>restrictions, then I consider it to be inconsistent and unfair to make
>other people take severe additional penalties in order to get the same
>benefit. Either it is worth it, just because alone are limited, in which
>case the guy with charges should get it without additional penalty,
>or it isn't worth it when it adds no additional penalty when applied
>to the pool, in which case the guy with the "Only in rain" Limitation
>_shouldn't_ get it.
>
>Don't penalize the guy with charges just because he took the wrong -1
>Limitation.
I would argue that putting a power with Charges in a Multipower inherently
reduces the value of the Charges limitation.
The "Only in rain" limitation makes the entire multipower useless in the
very common circumstances of "when it's not raining". On the other hand,
the circumstances under which "4 charges" limits the character is exactly
"when the character has used the power four times already".
The reason you're normally allowed to apply a common limitation to the
reserve cost is: when the limitation limits any of the powers, it limits
*all* of the powers the same way! On a sunny day, RainMan is hosed.
This just isn't true of GrenadeMan, for obvious reasons, unless you take
that same (small) number of charges on the entire reserve. Therefore,
you shouldn't be allowed to apply the full Charges limitation to the
reserve "for free".
Several of us have suggested that dissimilar limitations (and charges on
different slots are always dissimilar for these purposes) can be applied
to the Reserve cost with a spin on the "Variable Limitations" limitation.
If this argument made any sense to you, why not give it a try?
Donald
PS interesting way to effectively not pay for "reduced END":
60 12d6 EB
vs
30 Multipower - 60 pt reserve
3u 12d6 EB, 4 charges \
3u 12d6 EB, 4 charges \__ take 10 of these. you can even
... / mix & match special effects!
3u 12d6 EB, 4 charges /
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 18:13:52 -0800 (PST)
From: shaw@caprica.com (Wayne Shaw)
Subject: Re: extra time
>Hi,
>
>One of my players has a damage shield. He's bought it with the [extra time -
>full turn] limitation. What he wants is to spend a full turn activating the
>damage shield and then have it run normally until deactivated. I said I'd
>let him take the lim at half value based on the convention used with
>gestures and incantations. That, and he has to pay END into it every phase.
I don't have my book at hand, but I believe Extra Time already has a
standard modification when only used to start up. and of course he has to
pay Endurance every phase; nothing about Extra Time reduces the Endurance on
constant powers.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 17:57:54 -0800 (PST)
From: shaw@caprica.com (Wayne Shaw)
Subject: Re: Limitations on Multipowers
>At 03:27 AM 1/29/99 -0800, Wayne Shaw wrote:
>>>>It's a common construct for buying things like arsenals of weapons
>>>
>>>Nope - each weapon should be its own focus.
>>
>>Why? Why should the person who has seven different weapons be that much
>>more expensive than the person who has one weapon that does seven things?
>>That's a case of seriously punishing people cost-wise for what is, much of
>>the time, special effects.
>
>Esp. if you compare to buying those powers OUTSIDE of the multipower. One
>could argue that there's a definite advantage/lack of limitation of having
>multiple foci vs. one foci ... but it's not like I can buy "Power A, OAF
>(Foo)", and then argue my GM into "Power B, OAF (Foo), Foo Already Used for
>Power A (-1/x)" (or, alternatively, requiring "+1/x Advantage: New Focus").
That's why there's an argument that the multiple foci multipowers should
collectively be only OIF, with the slots getting OAF. It _is_ a bit less
limiting. But charging full cost for each seperate weapon is just silly.
It doesn't come close to being worthwhile to buy them then.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 21:33:36 -0500 (EST)
From: tdj723@webtv.net (thomas deja)
Subject: Re: Modifiers to Telepathy Attacks
>So, does that mean that EGO+10 on a regular
> person would become EGO+20 on the alien?
Yes--your target number to affect the target is higher because the
'operating systems' of his brain clashes with yours. Hell, it'd be
higherfor some beings--I wouldn't try conversing with Lovecraftian
beastie unless I got EGO+30 at least, maybe more....
"Many bears talk"
"Somehow I wouldn't have reckoned they had a lot to say."
"Talk Goddamn head off. Always got something to say about bees."
- --Jonah Hex and Spotted Balls, JONAH HEX: SHADOWS WEST
____________________________________
THE ULTIMATE HULK, containing the new story, "A Quiet, Normal Life," is
available now from Byron Preiss and Berkley
_______________________________
An except from the new story "Too Needy" can now be found at MAKE UP
YOUR OWN DAMN TITLE
www.freeyellow.com/members/tdj
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 18:31:48 -0800 (PST)
From: shaw@caprica.com (Wayne Shaw)
Subject: Re: Limitations on Multipowers
>Therefore, I'd have to say that the multipower itself is indeed subject to
>the Focus limitations, and deserves the bonus.
>
>Now, if JoeBob has even one power that /isn't/ an OAF, then the Multipower
>would not get the OIF limitation, I agree.
>
Exactly the distinction I'd make and the logic I consider to follow.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 18:07:36 -0800 (PST)
From: shaw@caprica.com (Wayne Shaw)
Subject: Re: Levels and Limitations
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Wayne Shaw <shaw@caprica.com>
>To: champ-l@sysabend.org <champ-l@sysabend.org>
>Date: Friday, January 29, 1999 9:03 PM
>Subject: Re: Levels and Limitations
>
>
>>>*grabs somebody's plasma cannon and shoots them with it*
>>>volia.
>>
>>And, as I pointed out, nothing requires him to make the focus Universal, a
>>choice that's considered just that, a choice, rather than a different level
>>of limitation?
>>
>
>yes, but if he has a common object like a mass-manufactured weapon,
>it's pretty common for them not to be hard-wired to a particular level. and
>in any event, there are exceptions- what about his evil twin?
Who says it's useable even by him? And most of the games where mass
manufactured weapons are present the points are largely irrelevant anyway,
so the question of what sized levels are used is moot.
>your position does not justify the lack of proper limtations, if the power
>is in a focus, it's
>in a focus. If that focus gets trashed, the power is gone for however long,
And again, if the focus is the only thing the levels are used with, who cares?
>>I'm sorry, but I might buy this if the system showed any sign of
>considering
>>the ability for a focus to be used by others other than a break even...but
>>it doesn't.
>>
>
>well, those of us in the know tend not to hand out nonuniversal foci without
>a
>good reason. Also, i don't let anything less than 5 pts get a limit, anyway.
Then the whole argument is moot.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 18:29:51 -0800 (PST)
From: shaw@caprica.com (Wayne Shaw)
Subject: Re: Limitations on Multipowers
>
>>Alternately, you can call the Multipower an OIF, since it can be taken
>>away out of combat (search the guy and remove all of the gadgets). It
>>comes out to the same amount of points.
>
>The MP itself is not limited by the Focus Limitation, therefore no
>bonus applies.
>
>I'm a harsh b*st*rd.
>
I'd like to think you aren't irrational one. How is the pool _not_ limited
by the focus limitation if you can take it away out of combat just like an
OIF? Because if it's entirely compased of OAF slots, that's what you can
do. If you disagree, please show how it's less limiting than making it an OIF.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 18:04:27 -0800 (PST)
From: shaw@caprica.com (Wayne Shaw)
Subject: Re: How much damage should guns do.
>>>* I reject the excuse that the damage values given are what they are
>>>because they are intended for "comic book" or "cinematic" damage. The
>core
>>>rules -- including damage values for common weapons -- need to apply
>>>equally to all genres, not just comic book or cinematic/high adventure
>>>games. If you want to modify the damage ratings, or the way damage is
>>>calculated, within a genre book, fine.
>>
>>Stop right there. You're playing the wrong game.
>>
>
>woah there!
Sorry, but I was quite serious. If he wants a game where the default
assumptions are realistic rather than cinematic, he _is_ playing the wrong
game. That's not the Hero System.
>
>>I'm quite serious; while there are various rules to make this less so, the
>>base assumptions in the Hero System are and always have been cinematic in
>>nature; this goes all the way from the strength values to the damage
>
>add a pip of hka with every point of strength past 20, manditory for
>character creation.
>you quickly get proper or effective lethality- it costs more, as it should.
>Hence, a guy with str 30 is doing 2d6 hka should he wish it.
And this relates to what I said in what fashion.
>
>> to the
>>fact people can dodge bullets as effectively as thrown rocks.
>
>add a bonus to ocv of guns based on their speed. again it will result in a
>more
>expensive construct, but it's possible, and quite viable.
And you'll notice these are none of them in the base rules. i never said
the Hero System couldn't be mutated into something non-cinematic...i said it
wasn't designed that way as a base assumption.
>
>> If you don't
>>realize that, trying to address this sort of thing will cause you enormous
>>frustration, because it's too well embodied int he core design of the
>rules.
>>
>
>nope. i'd turn his suggestion around, and tell him to think of a realistic
>genre-book.
>As it is, this ain't htat non-deadly. I mean if you have enough points, you
>can kill
>somebody. how many time have you heard somebody that just got beaten up
>saying:
But that was my point; complaining that the rules aren't particularly
realistic is the wrong way to approach it, because they weren't particularly
designed to be realistic. What you need to do is to figure out what you
want to do to make them realistic. But basing it on the inverse assumption
will cause you grief.
>>The Hero System was designed initially around the superhero genre, and the
>>basic assumptions in it support that sort of feel. The fact it is useable
>>for other settings is largely an artifact of the fact the superhero genre
>is
>>so all encompassing. But if you expect it's assumptions at the root to be
>>truly genre/style neutral, you're in the wrong game.
>>
>>
>
>well, i'd tend to say this is as realistic as anything, considering you can
>tweak it to
>suit what you think of realism. Take cyberpunk- armor=invincible. Take ad&d=
>kicking people in the head wears off. at least we have the option to make
>adjustments.
As you do in any game. And I doubt seriously anyone would mistake D&D for a
realistic game. My point was that you have to realize when tweaking the
Hero System that it _is_ designed as a cinematic game. Then you can make a
deliberate attempt to adjust it to suit on that basis. But if you assume it
is, or was intended, to be realistic, you'll find yourself quite frustrated.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 21:06:09 -0600 (Central Standard Time)
From: Tim Gilberg <gilberg@ou.edu>
Subject: Re: Power set question.
> TG> Er, no. By the book, does no bod is a -0 modifier. (Of course,
> TG> this assumes that does no bod does not include no KB.)
>
> By the book, 'does no Body' is also exclusive to Energy Blast. Does no
> Body on an RKA is a wasted +1.5 Advantage (cf AVLD) :).
Well, not really, as Stun still only applies if Resistant Def is
present. Do you want to let your players take Stun-Only KAs at -3/4 to
- -1? It would be the cheapest, most efficient power imaginable.
-Tim Gilberg
-"English Majors of the World! Untie!"
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 19:12:21 -0800
From: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
Subject: Re: Modifiers to Telepathy Attacks
From: thomas deja <tdj723@webtv.net>
>So, does that mean that EGO+10 on a regular
> person would become EGO+20 on the alien?
Yes--your target number to affect the target is higher because the
'operating systems' of his brain clashes with yours. Hell, it'd be
higherfor some beings--I wouldn't try conversing with Lovecraftian
beastie unless I got EGO+30 at least, maybe more....
You would _talk_ to a Lovecraftian beastie, MIND TO MIND? Are you mad? If
not, you _will be_.
Filksinger
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 19:46:45 -0600
From: Tim Statler <tstatler@igateway.net>
Subject: Power set Question ver2
Thanks for all the comments so far, keep 'em coming.
Here is version 2 of the sword
Sword of the Valkyrie
4d6 HA, NND (def is Non living object or plant)(+1), 0 End(+1/2),
(OAF(-1)-OIHID(-1/4)) 5d6 w/str 13
2d6 HKA, not vs. Living creatures(-1/2), 0end(+1/2), (OAF (-1)-
OIHID (-1/4)), Linked to NND(-1/2) 2 1/2d6 w/str 13
notes: the str note shows what the characters str is and how it modifys
damage. The character still pays END on her STR. I took Happyelf's
suggestion, and instead of just halving the bonus of the focus-- I
subtract the OIHID from the focus. Unfortuneately, I'm blocked on
figuring the cost of the HKA. I came up with a cost of 30 on the HA
(bought at 5pt/die) but the extra limitations mess me up on the HKA.
Happyelf (and Others) could you help on the math and check mine?
Tim Statler
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 18:25:04 -0800 (PST)
From: shaw@caprica.com (Wayne Shaw)
Subject: Re: Limitations on Multipowers
>On Fri, 29 Jan 1999 03:27:07 -0800 (PST), Wayne Shaw wrote:
>
>>
>>>>It's a common construct for buying things like arsenals of weapons
>>>
>>>Nope - each weapon should be its own focus.
>>
>>Why? Why should the person who has seven different weapons be that much
>>more expensive than the person who has one weapon that does seven things?
>>That's a case of seriously punishing people cost-wise for what is, much of
>>the time, special effects.
>
>Because if you take away one weapon you can still use the others.
>Therefore the Focus Limitation does not limit the Multipower itself.
>Remember the cardinal rule of Limitations: A Limitation that doesn't
>limit isn't worth any bonus.
So call the multipower an OIF (since you can take away all the individual
foci, and at that point the whole multipower is effectively gone) and call
the slots OAFs (since they can be taken away individually). That was my
point. It's silly to say you can't call seperate slots of a mutlipower OAFs
however.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 18:37:03 -0800 (PST)
From: shaw@caprica.com (Wayne Shaw)
Subject: Re: Limitations on Multipowers
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>"WS" == Wayne Shaw <shaw@caprica.com> writes:
>
>WS> Why? Why should the person who has seven different weapons be that much
>WS> more expensive than the person who has one weapon that does seven
>WS> things?
>
>This one is obvious, Wayne:
>
>I take one of the seven weapons away from the first character; he still has
>six weapons that he can use.
>
>I take the seven-in-one weapon away from the second character; he has no
>weapons left.
Which is a reason to not give the same savings for the multiple weapons, but
it's not a reason to forbid themj as multipower slots or not say that a
multipower composed entirely of foci is not more limited than one that
isn't...or to force someone to buy multiple weapons as entirely seperate
powers. I can certainly see reasons why the pool should not be counted as
an OAF in the latter case, but as someone pointed out there's not much
difference between it and an OIF in practice, and the slots _are_ OAFs.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 19:10:38 -0800
From: "Filksinger" <filksinger@usa.net>
Subject: Re: Multipower Questions
From: Donald Tsang <tsang@sedl.org>
>
>I would argue that putting a power with Charges in a Multipower inherently
>reduces the value of the Charges limitation.
Actually, I agree. I just don't want to see Charges Man utterly messed over
by this. A _partial_ reduction of the pool is in order, in certain cases;
the most obvious being charges, another being Focus.
<snip>
>Several of us have suggested that dissimilar limitations (and charges on
>different slots are always dissimilar for these purposes) can be applied
>to the Reserve cost with a spin on the "Variable Limitations" limitation.
>If this argument made any sense to you, why not give it a try?
It makes sense to me. I wouldn't mind the Variable Limitations option, and
will probably use it myself. However, I would _definitely_ like to see it
spelled out in 5th Ed.
Filksinger
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 18:25:02 -0800 (PST)
From: shaw@caprica.com (Wayne Shaw)
Subject: Re: A painful question
>At 11:18 PM 1/28/99 -0800, Wayne Shaw wrote:
>>That's not the issue; whether they're derived from my campaign or not, it's
>>just too many to use regularly. With 12 hunteds in a game, if you're using
>>them as intended, you expect about three of them involved _every session_.
>>I just find that too damn much trouble.
>
> Funny... I find that to be a great impetus for plots.
> In many of my stories, one of the Hunters is the main baddie for the
>session, while two others provide plot complications.
But that's the point, Bob...I consider Hunteds used as the primary plot
element not really part of the Hunted. After all, everyone gets a problem
when the main plot involves something. Hunteds as a Disadvantage I treat
as an _extra_ problem.
> Or maybe two of the Hunters have primary involvement, working either
>together or against each other.
> (Of course, those 12 Hunteds won't necessarily be all different; with
>campaign based Hunteds, there'll be a lot of overlap.)
Not necessarily. If one character has problems related to organized crime,
one related to a supervillain team, one related to supernatural problems,
one involving a particular superagency and so on, it's entirely possible for
12 Hunteds to not overlap at all.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 18:44:53 -0800 (PST)
From: shaw@caprica.com (Wayne Shaw)
Subject: Re: Multipower Questions
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>"BG" == Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com> writes:
>
>BG> What was nonsensical about it was that it had no bearing on the logic of
>BG> the previous statement whatsoever.
>
>Okay... if "lots" of one limitation (Charges) on the slots translates into
>an advantage on the reserve, then lots of other limitations (END use,
>Focus, what have you) on the slots should likewise translate into an
>advantage on the reserve.
>
>The flaw is in the invention of an exception for the handling of Charges in
>Multipowers when no such exception exists in the rules. The stupid logic
>presented is my attempt at restoring consistency to the system in the face
>of that exception (or to show just how stupid I think the exception is,
>take your pick).
The difference is, in this case giving the charges to the seperate slots
makes a multipower able to cost less than an individual power with the same
number of overall uses with no appreciable net limitation.
Example:
Energy Blast, 12D6, 16 Charges. Cost 60 points.
Multipower: 60 points, 4 charges...Cost 30 points.
4 slots, under your scheme, each gets the same limitation, and seperate
charges: Cost per slot 3 points.
Total Cost: 42 points.
For the latter, the only limitation the user has is that he may have to use
a different attack power as he runs out of charges. On the other hand, he
gets the option of doing so before he does so, and the net cost is lower
than simply the Energy Blast...much lower in fact.
The only other Limitation that would have this effect is if you considered
Burnout applied to a multipower to apply to the individual powers. Unless
you can find some game design logic that suggests why a multipower should
get more out of a Limitation than an individual power, I'd say the imbalance
is quite obvious with this Limiation and _only_ this Limitation.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 22:52:25 -0500 (EST)
From: tdj723@webtv.net (thomas deja)
Subject: Re: Modifiers to Telepathy Attacks
>From: filkhero@usa.net (Filksinger)
>>You would _talk_ to a Lovecraftian beastie,
>> MIND TO MIND? Are you mad? If not, you
>> _will be_.
I wouldn't--can't stand Lovecraft myself--but Mythos fiction is filled
with idiots who feel they can communicate with Squidhead and Goatgal and
the whole misshappen, misbegotten family....and what's a little ssnity
between friends?
"Many bears talk"
"Somehow I wouldn't have reckoned they had a lot to say."
"Talk Goddamn head off. Always got something to say about bees."
- --Jonah Hex and Spotted Balls, JONAH HEX: SHADOWS WEST
____________________________________
THE ULTIMATE HULK, containing the new story, "A Quiet, Normal Life," is
available now from Byron Preiss and Berkley
_______________________________
An except from the new story "Too Needy" can now be found at MAKE UP
YOUR OWN DAMN TITLE
www.freeyellow.com/members/tdj
------------------------------
Date: 29 Jan 1999 23:28:57 -0500
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: Multipower Questions
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
"WS" == Wayne Shaw <shaw@caprica.com> writes:
WS> The difference is, in this case giving the charges to the seperate
WS> slots makes a multipower able to cost less than an individual power
WS> with the same number of overall uses with no appreciable net
WS> limitation.
Then the way Charges is written up is wrong and needs to be changed.
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v0.9.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE2soqJgl+vIlSVSNkRAhedAKCmPwZkaOlONLYUlapenm0gAjde+gCgtW7l
fjNHVEt+YStWZZ3nZgHWJ/U=
=798E
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- --
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ When not in use, Happy Fun Ball should be
Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ returned to its special container and
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ kept under refrigeration.
------------------------------
Date: 29 Jan 1999 23:30:10 -0500
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: Power set question.
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
"TG" == Tim Gilberg <gilberg@ou.edu> writes:
TG> Well, not really, as Stun still only applies if Resistant Def is
TG> present. Do you want to let your players take Stun-Only KAs at -3/4 to
TG> -1? It would be the cheapest, most efficient power imaginable.
Like I said, it is a waste of a +1.5 Advantage (AVLD: Resistant PD or ED).
It certainly is not a valid limitation, IMO.
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v0.9.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE2sorSgl+vIlSVSNkRAss3AKCBVW2YK0AB0rxSaM6BY6gepy2nGwCfR5Hh
T2h1Wbm9x90ESMzJm3InCCE=
=HkXU
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- --
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ If Happy Fun Ball begins to smoke, get
Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ away immediately. Seek shelter and cover
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ head.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 21:25:27 -0800
From: Christopher Taylor <ctaylor@viser.net>
Subject: Re: How much damage should guns do.
>>>>* I reject the excuse that the damage values given are what they are
>>>>because they are intended for "comic book" or "cinematic" damage. The
>>core
>>>>rules -- including damage values for common weapons -- need to apply
>>>>equally to all genres, not just comic book or cinematic/high adventure
>>>>games. If you want to modify the damage ratings, or the way damage is
>>>>calculated, within a genre book, fine.
>>>
>>>Stop right there. You're playing the wrong game.
>>>
>>
>>woah there!
>
>Sorry, but I was quite serious. If he wants a game where the default
>assumptions are realistic rather than cinematic, he _is_ playing the wrong
>game. That's not the Hero System.
But you know as well as I do that with the optional rules in effect and
minor changes to how the surroundings are affected by attacks the hero
system can be VERY believable.
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sola Gracia Sola Scriptura Sola Fide
Soli Gloria Deo Solus Christus Corum Deo
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 00:45:14 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Surbrook <susano@otd.com>
Subject: Hero news!
Heh... found this on the Hero Games website!
New Products Coming Soon
We just wanted to pass along that there are new products in the pipeline.
We've recently received drafts of Kazei Five, The Ultimate Shape
Changer, The Kandris Seal, and more. These products should be
released in the coming months. Also we're finishing up work on the
Cthulhu Creatorsoftware. (By the way, Call of Cthulhu is a registered
trademark of Chaosium, Inc., and Cthulhu Creator is produced under
license from them.) So we will have a whole host of new products for
you very soon.
Ahem... check line two!
- --
Michael Surbrook - susano@otd.com - http://www.otd.com/~susano/index.html
"And I, Susano, warrior-god of the Black Dragon Eye,
will teach you your proper place!!"
Susano Orbatos, _Orion_
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 21:51:01 -0800 (PST)
From: shaw@caprica.com (Wayne Shaw)
Subject: Re: Multipower Questions
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>"WS" == Wayne Shaw <shaw@caprica.com> writes:
>
>WS> The difference is, in this case giving the charges to the seperate
>WS> slots makes a multipower able to cost less than an individual power
>WS> with the same number of overall uses with no appreciable net
>WS> limitation.
>
>Then the way Charges is written up is wrong and needs to be changed.
Or alternatively, a special case applies when using them on Multipowers. In
any case, it's pretty clear that the assumption that they apply at full
value to individual slots is largely graft. Since there is another
interpetation which still permits this while not being abusive, I think it's
quite defensible to use that.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 01:17:05 -0500
From: Scott Nolan <nolan@erols.com>
Subject: Re: Hero news!
At 12:45 AM 1/30/99 -0500, you wrote:
>Heh... found this on the Hero Games website!
>
>New Products Coming Soon
>We just wanted to pass along that there are new products in the pipeline.
>We've recently received drafts of Kazei Five, The Ultimate Shape
>Changer, The Kandris Seal, and more. These products should be
>released in the coming months. Also we're finishing up work on the
>Cthulhu Creatorsoftware. (By the way, Call of Cthulhu is a registered
>trademark of Chaosium, Inc., and Cthulhu Creator is produced under
>license from them.) So we will have a whole host of new products for
>you very soon.
>
>Ahem... check line two!
Congratulations, Michael!
And to Lisa Hartjes, who is doing The Kandris Seal.
(Dunno who has The Ultimate Shapeshifter)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"When the stars threw down their spears,
and water'd heaven with their tears,
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the Lamb make thee?"
William Blake, The Tyger
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Scott C. Nolan
nolan@erols.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 21:53:27 -0800 (PST)
From: shaw@caprica.com (Wayne Shaw)
Subject: Re: How much damage should guns do.
>>>>>* I reject the excuse that the damage values given are what they are
>>>>>because they are intended for "comic book" or "cinematic" damage. The
>>>core
>>>>>rules -- including damage values for common weapons -- need to apply
>>>>>equally to all genres, not just comic book or cinematic/high adventure
>>>>>games. If you want to modify the damage ratings, or the way damage is
>>>>>calculated, within a genre book, fine.
>>>>
>>>>Stop right there. You're playing the wrong game.
>>>>
>>>
>>>woah there!
>>
>>Sorry, but I was quite serious. If he wants a game where the default
>>assumptions are realistic rather than cinematic, he _is_ playing the wrong
>>game. That's not the Hero System.
>
>But you know as well as I do that with the optional rules in effect and
>minor changes to how the surroundings are affected by attacks the hero
>system can be VERY believable.
i could debate that, but it's not really relevant. The person I was
originally addressing this to wanted the baseline of the game system to be
realistic. It isn't, rather by deliberate design, and if that's what he
wants, the Hero System isn't for him.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 01:09:48 -0600
From: "Thomas Vickers" <redroach@sprynet.com>
Subject: Re: How much damage should guns do.
I could debate that, but it's not really relevant. The person I was
>originally addressing this to wanted the baseline of the game system to be
>realistic. It isn't, rather by deliberate design, and if that's what he
>wants, the Hero System isn't for him.
Since I think the remark was directed at me and I held my tongue once, I
will not a second time.
The Hero System IS for me. I prefer it, I like it and it works for any genre
if used correctly. From the attitude here, I can see why I usually choose
not to subscribe to this list. I came here to gain and share advice and I
am told "Hero Isn't for you" once I ask a question. Sounds more like "this
list" isn't for me. I am very sorry that I wasted my time here.
So do not decide what game system is for me or is not for me. That is my
job. Your job is to practice being small minded.
Thomas Vickers
------------------------------
End of champ-l-digest V1 #171
*****************************